NO, Obama is NOT defending DOMA!

I make this post with some hesitation, as unfortunately, it's probably going to be mostly ignored. I hope I am wrong, but it appears most people have already got their minds made up.....the majority of posts on this subject have made that clear:

"Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget."
"This week I was punished on this board for calling Obama a failure. I feel vindicated."
"Progressive Puppy blog heartbreakingly covers Obama's defense for DOMA."
"There is no possible excuse for Obama's defending DOMA in Federal Court"
"My respect has grown for all DU'ers, straight and gay, who have stood up against Obama on DOMA"
"Hand picked Assist. Atty. Gen. Filed The Motion to Dismiss Today."
"Fuck him."

Despite all the hoopla, the assertion that "Obama defends DOMA" simply is NOT true.

You see, the Department of Justice has a legal obligation to defend the United States when it is a party to a criminal or civil action. This has already been pointed out by some people and promptly dismissed by those determined to lay all the blame on Obama, however, try to deny that truth as one might, it is the truth.

This is laid out under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:



But....but....but it's still Obama's fault! It had to be cleared with Obama! Obama had to have OKed the brief! Obama's hand is all over this! Obama hates the gays........

WRONG!

You see, under The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys Manual, TITLE 1; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/title1.htm), there is a section titled "Department of Justice Communications with the White House" (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/doj00032.htm).

It reads, under Section 32:



What does that mean? Well, it means pretty much what it says. In order to keep politics out of the process, the Department of Justice does NOT consult with the President, nor does it asks for the President's permission, nor does it brief the President in legal matters in which the United States is a party unless it "is important for the performance of the President's duties" or deals with "national security matters."

There is absolutely no concerted effort by President Obama or the Obama Administration to deny gay people anything, or to defend DOMA.

Simply put, it's just governmental business as usual, meaning the Department of Justice is simply doing what it is required BY LAW to do.

Now, I have made this post in good faith, and I hope it brings a better understanding to the issue at hand.

We can get mad or we can get educated.

I hope we choose to get educated.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

The thing that perplexes me is that the left is just a culpable as the right in simplistic thinking. I had hopes that we were better then what I have been seeing lately.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That I could see in any event.

Has done nothing to show them he's earned their respect or trust. I can understand why people are angry towards him.

He got our votes and then seems to act like we don't exist. Except for fluff pieces, of course.

..."nattering nabobs of negativity"

Sad that so-called "democrats" prove a person like Spiro Agnew to be correct!

....greed. He would have been President (after Nixon resigned) if he didn't continue to take bribes from his Maryland connections even after becoming VP.

He sure had a fine line in quotes!

Thanks George, other than his resignation I knew very little about Agnew, so you have me interested now. Time to start reading!

"ideology and greed." Not the party of Eisenhower, anymore.

Safire is still a jackass. Agnew was a boob.

Safire wrote for Agnew, and often teamed up with Pat Buchanan writing for Nixon.

Agnew was a two-bit hustler - overrated in the brains department.

Yep not so different than Rush, et al.

Though probably not in the way that you intended.

:hi:

Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.


http://www.americablog.com/

Please understand that the DOJ is full of Bushes that never left. They need to be weeded out. To me this is a Bushie trying to embarrass Obama and drive a wedge between him and his supporters--

THINK ABOUT IT!!!

Hand picked by Obama. A motion bearing his name would not have been filed without his consent, absent malpractice.

Just as letters routinely go out from companies bearing a CEO's name, that doesn't mean that the CEO ever read the letter, let alone wrote it.

As such, in the DOJ, where this response was legally mandated, the name of Tony West would routinely appear on filings of this sort because he is the head of the department.

Your idea of "malpractice" is woefully misinformed.

There are different codes of ethics which apply. Get back to me after you have reviewed the applicable legal codes of conduct, the local cour rules, and the implications of permitting someone else to file a document in court with your name, as counsel of record.

I was not stating that the corporate rules of ethics are comparable to the legal codes of ethics.

However, this is not an ethical matter. This is a procedural matter, a common and legitimate practice, and I would urge you to get back to me after you've read up on the way the rules work when the DOJ is a party to civil suits. If you understood how the system works, you perhaps wouldn't be so hampered by muddled thinking.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are a great place to start, and, here, I'll give you a helping hand:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/

to sign a document being filed in court with your name is most certainly covered by the legal codes of ethics and the local court rules. As someone who has filed quite a few documents in federal court, and has had documents filed with my name on them as counsel of record, I have NEVER filed a document without the express consent of anyone whose name was on it nor have I EVER allowed anyone else to file a document with my name on it without my express consent.

I am legally and ethically responsible for every document filed in court with my name on it as counsel of record, as is Tony West.

If you are an attorney who follows a different practice, you are risking your license - and if you are speaking off the top of you head, get back to me after you have reviewed the relevant documents that govern the practice of law.

Tony West is responsible.

As he is for every document filed under his name.

So?

Where on earth are you coming up with "malpractice" in this matter? This was a standard brief in a DOJ matter. There are thousands of them every year, and they go out with a lot of names attached to them. No one ever has time to read them all - that's what staffs are for.

My license is solid, in good standing, but your lack of knowledge of the workings of the DOJ is stunning...................

If you don't have a clue about how malpractice might be involved in submitting a document to court on behalf of other counsel of record without their express consent (the subject of the post to which you responded), I can't help you.

Have fun tossing insults around - I won't be responding anymore.

in bad faith. DOMA is not defensible in the light of the 14th Amendment. To argue that DOMA is good law is, in my opinion, frivolous.

If that IS the case, aside from the fact it shows a terrible disconnect in DOJ -that an issue of this import wouldn't get a vet from the highest echelons in the organizatiion, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect him (assuming he doesn't support/agree) to just SAY so, publicly...by now at least?

every year? The government, via the Department of Justice, is legally obligated to respond to those suits, and there is no "connect" between the White House and the Department of Justice.

There is not supposed to be any connection between the White House and the Department of Justice. The George W. Bush years were a perfect example of how it is NOT supposed to work, and that's why there are screams for their prosecution.

The White House and the Department of Justice operate independently of each other, as the forefathers intended.

Obama has NOTHING to do with this, or with any other briefs that come out of the Justice Department. You simply don't know how government works if you're asking that question. The last thing in the world we should have - and, again, George W. Bush's tenure proved this to be so true - is a White House involved in Department of Justice matters, and vice versa.

Obama's silence on this matter is perfectly appropriate, and the hysteria over that brief is being fueled by people who

1. don't know how government works, and
2. didn't read the brief.

Obama has had nothing to do with this brief........................

You didn't even address my point...if (IF) he knew nothing about it, are you suggesting he STILL doesn't???
Hell, nobody I know thinks he's THAT out of the loop. :eyes:

He has plenty of time to go out for hamburgers but not 5 minutes to make a public statement in his own defense in this matter? Sell that crap to someone who just fell off the turnip truck.

Now here is another IMPORTANT point: DOJ as attorney-in-fact for the USA is, as some have mentioned, obligated to uphold and support "the law of the land", but it is NOT required to do that to any greater degree than is requested by their clients - the administration in particular and in this case, and is most definitely in error to do it by filing documents full of half-truths, innuendos, insults and ugliness.

Regardless of what the mechanics of the law is, all Obama has to do is make a public statement either for or against. It would settle it, instead we have people like the OPer making what amounts to a really long justifiable (at least in his or her's mind) "excuse" for the silence on the matter.

....this issue isn't driving a wedege between Obama and his supporters, those posting here are NOT Obama supporters and never were. They're just a bunch of whiners who will never stop until their own selfish interests are served. Pathetic.

"... those posting here are NOT Obama supporters and never were." ??
Incorrect.
Many of us are... and many others of us were... Obama supporters. As Obama continues to ignore/fail in every way to address the issues important to one of the constituencies of his base, however... that support erodes more and more each week. In response to his utter silence as the DoJ files hateful defenses of DOMA, some of which are based on the ravings of Michael Steele, and many more of which are even more offensive... I actually unsubscribed from the O(bama) F(or) A(merica) mailing list.

And as for your insistence that it is a matter of selfish interests... firstly, all interests are selfish... including interest in Healthcare Reform and fixing the Economy.... secondly, to the extent that any interest can be anything but selfish- for many of us this isn't selfish. Not all of us are part of the GLBT community... some of us just find ourselves incapable of supporting a politician who seems to unconcerned with Equal Rights for a portion of his own constituency.

I suspect your criticism of those critical of Obama is more firmly rooted in selfish interests than that of any Obama critics.

Pshah...

Chances are he never had it to begin with.

As far as those so-called "selfish interests", read my other posts in this this discussion.

You've just been arguing with yourself, posting over and over again in reply to yourself. That'll get your post count up, huh?

without criticism-- but he's been a MAJOR disappointment since then, in many ways

When you pulled the lever for him (or filled in the circle on the ballot), what was the schedule you had in mind for accomplishing what you expected him to accomplish? He has a four year term ahead of him, and he's only been in office since January 20 (five months next week) He has also inherited the worst mess that any president has inherited since 1933 - mayb worse because in addition to an unpresidented economic situation he's also inherited TWO wars and a rogue state with nuclear weapons (North Korea)

So, please explain the nature of him being "a MAJOR disappointment" and what those "many ways" are.

Thanks.

Chances are he never had it to begin with.

As far as those so-called "selfish interests", read my other posts in this this discussion.

Yay, you!

Consider this analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5838361

Remember how pissed we were at Bush politicizing the Justice Department? Jose Gonzales and all that? This case is an example of un-politicizing the Justice Department. That's all. It's functioning the way it should.

And don't worry. They'll lose.

But they have to try it; the DOJ has to try Federal cases. The president has no say, or didn't until Dubya came in.
Remember Jose Gonzales? Politicizing the DoJ and all that? We were all pissed about that remember?

This is unpoliticizing it. Don't worry. They'll lose.

WTF is this place anymore?

...."Jose" Gonzales is about as bad as that republican Senator talking about "Maria" Sotomayor a couple of weeks ago. I suppose if they're Hispanic they have to be named Jose and Maria. Not important that their REAL names are Alberto and Sonia!

I had a bad moment there. :argh:

and emotional attempt to make a point rather than outright dishonesty.

See this post to see how wrong the authors' conclusions as quoted really are:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5838361

Comparing gays with pedophiles and incestuous relationships?

Say what you will, Mr. Obama knows what was said. Mr. Obama is the President. If Mr. Obama is not at fault, then it is time for him to speak up. Finally.

That's usually how he "speaks up" Somebody asks a question to Gibbs and he answers.

Note, this is the DOJ's department not the WH department.

The words pedophile or incest do not exist in this brief. Comparing marriage laws from state to state does not in any way equate to comparing gays to anything. It's only comparing different marriage laws from state to state, that's it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

It was a long read but necessary for anyone making an informed opinion on the subject. I was particularly interested on the citation of Loving v VA.

It seems the best way for DOMA opponents to approach a case would be for a federal employee to apply for certain rights and, if (when) they are denied, sue for a specific harm.

I did see the language that might be interpreted as such. And I think those who see it that way should say so.

I also see that this change we are looking to see is a process, just as any battle for civil rights is a process. I would love to have all States ordered to accept gay marriage. I also see why, aside from any arguments, pro or con, of States' rights to decide their own laws, it would be unwise and counterproductive to force this upon them. Along with laws, we need to change the hearts of the people. Sometimes laws help to change the hearts of the people, such as Affirmative Action. Some laws only agitate the people who oppose. Too many of those who oppose gay marriage are haters who would consider assaulting or even killing others over this matter to be just in the eyes of their god. Just look at the anti-abortionists and what they do. Would it be any different?

I really think we need to continue this battle, one step at a time. This court battle did not win the war, but there will be more battles to come, and at some point we will win.

One last thing. I think blaming Obama is not productive, and only plays into the the RWers hands.

that cannot be voted on, which I think is the basis of the Boies/Olsen suit; or it is a state marriage matter and the federal rights must be extended in any given state according to the state law on marriage the way it is now. Because some states allow 16 year olds to marry does not mean there's any pedophilia involved and certainly doesn't mean anybody is comparing gays to pedophiliacs. I really don't care who the President is, this kind of hyperbolic reaction is just not useful in a democracy.

Despite the fact that the marriages they're comparing relate to incestuous relationships or marriage between older people and underage people, that in no way equates marriage between two consenting adults with either of those. It's not like they're trying to give it the same "ew" factor or anything.

What other variations in state law are there going to be?

So I'm sure you can tell us.

things than equality under the law.

In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

So tell me, of all the issues presented to Obama by the previous administration, which of these are the most important to the American people:

Ending the war in Afghanistan
Ending the war in Iraq
Working out a liveable agreement in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs
Stopping the nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula
Closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay
Turning the economy around, including the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the auto industry, the insurance industry, etc.
Reversing the increase in unemployment
Providing decent health care for ALL Americans
Reducing America's dependence on foreign oil
Etc.
Etc.
Repealing DOMA

Huh? With all those pressing issues facing Obama, America, and the world, all you can whine about is a FALSE claim about Obama's position and actions with respect to DOMA?

Ridiculous. And before you attack me for being a homophobe (I can just see your fingers typing that word right now!), please be aware that I AM GAY! But I'm not so self-centered and selfish to think that this issue should come first before all the other woes facing us today.

You have that Reagan era attitude - "give me mine and give it to me NOW, and fuck everyone else - let them fend for themselves". That doesn't work in society and thankfully it won't work under an Obama administration.

I don't think issues of human rights need to be ranked in order of concern. Obama is a bright, energetic man. He has the ability to multi task. We also have majorities in both houses of congress and we have no way of knowing if they will still be in place in 2011, so speed is of the utmost urgency. I have spoken out about every subject on your list. One needn't preclude another.

I like the way you anticipate me calling you a homophobe and then object to something I haven't done. I also see that you have adopted the subtle "whining" meme. For the record, I write what I think as clearly as I can. I (and many others here) have never once "whined" about anything. You give comfort and aid to those who would keep us second class citizens by employing such language. What I am doing is demanding that my elected official (our EMPLOYEE), who I voted for and donated to, live up to the contract he made on these issues. Any distortions on your end will not stop me from doing that.

Obama made not contract regarding these issues. If HRC had been elected, i could understand you being upset. As it is now, the reality of the circumstance is that Obama could ignore constitutional requirements and circumvent his duty by halting DADT, or Congress could rally the necessary votes and introduce a bill that Obama has indicated he would sign. If there where enough pressure on the representatives, then the bill would be on the floor now. The concept that Obama should be pushing for this is foolish and naive. He would have to halt all legislation and threaten a veto embargo which would result in a political loss for him. You may want him to pitch his body on the DADT grenade but some of us do not.

....what was the schedule in that contract? Was there one? You people are bashing him and his administration because, as I said, you feel "Give me mine and give it to me NOW", as though you're the only person in the country.

I suppose I was incorrect in calling it "Limbaugh-esque", that comment about me giving "aid and comfort to those who would keep us second class citizens" exposes you more like "Cheney-esque" or even "O'Reilly-esque". You sure have filled out your portfolio nicely.

Good day, I'm going back to being concerned with ALL 300 million Americans, not just a few. That is what TRUE Democrats do!!

Keep digging.

why am I not surprised.

The edit by ME (not "it", dolt) did NOT remove the "you people" - that term is still in the post. The edit was to correct a spelling error, not to change the substance or content of the post.

Why are you not surprised? Perhaps because you may be included in the "you people"? Or, since the "you people" is still in the post you may be surprised because of your lack of literacy?

:grr:

This "fierce advocate for gays and lesbians" is nothing more than a lip-service agent. His "change you can believe in" has yet to be proven to gays and lesbians. Yeah, we're angry. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand what it's like to be courted for the prom and then stood up.

Or maybe you do.

Politicians never deliver on all of their campaign promises. All of us except for the most naive know that full well.

Now I hope that Obama does see to it that both DADT and DOMA are repealed, the sooner the better. But come on now, don't pretend that you are so surprised that a politician has not lived up to a campaign promise.

Stop reading reactionary blogs and go read the actual brief.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void")."

"Marriage of uncle to niece" = incest.
"Marriage of 16-year-old female" and "permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage" = pedophile.

Call it what you want. Spin it how you'd like. The implication of those words is there. Putting the marriage of two gay people in the same category as underage marriage and marrying your relatives is attempting to give it an "ew" factor.

This board is running high on emotions. The language within the brief was disgusting and cruel to the LGBT community and that is undeniable. However, it is also undeniable that DOMA is law and even if the briefs were written that way or not the case would have went the same way. I'm disappointed by the language used but I'm also disappointed by the way the blame was automatically thrust on Obama when it doesn't prove he even had a clue about what was being said. He already has one perspective which is pro LGBT and the current laws are working against him.

He says he's taken initial steps to ensure the rights of LGBT and I trust him on that. I do want him to talk on this and I do want viable legislation but I don't blame him for this as though he wrote it himself.

I guess the misinformed are outnumbered.
I wish it didn't have to be so fucking filled with anger, but oh well...

:hi:

:toast:

mid thread stealth kick....

Don't the political appointees have some input into which cases they contest and how they contest them?

And even if his DoJ is only following the law that they are required to enforce, shouldn't we as a progressive community organize outrage and protest against an official policy that segregates Americans by which rights get protected or denied?

It's a law with a questionable constitutional basis anyway.

I know they can't just start working against that law, but are they required to contest every challenge to it? I know the Ashcroft-Gonzalez Justice Department didn't defend laws they didn't like--but is that advocatory discretion or is that unconstitutional?

If they are following their own statutory obligations, they must defend the federal laws on the books. Bush's DOJ was a joke.

want to defend. Reagan. Clinton. They just tell Congress the DOJ is not going to file. So IF that were true, the vile language and the arguments chosen would be the only issue at hand, still a big one. But it is not true. In fact, this particular motion was not required but make by choice.

Bush did the same thing we can also say that the DOJ was a nice right mess then too.

Reagan --> Iran-Contra

Bush Sr. --> lied about his involvement in Iran-Contra

Clinton --> lied to federal grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky

Bush Jr. --> Iraq War

.

But rational is never allowed it seems.

The law needs to be changed. Bush like methods are not the route to justice.

As for the verbiage in the briefs, well that can't be laid on Obama can it? It has to lay with particular lawyers in the DOJ who used that defense, all of which are under Holder's firing and hiring. Obama has always said he doesn't presume to tell Holder how to do his job or know how he'll go about it---he just trusts Holder to uphold the law. And we don't like DOMA or DADT----but as disgusting as they are, they are the law.

And I see nothing wrong with protests since I sent my fair share to the DOJ and WH yesterday about this. However, it's the language as though Obama wrote this and defended it in court---which is what most are saying. The blame is put on him as though most people don't realize there are divisions of power.

Someone even used Bush as a defense to say, well Bush used the DOJ to defend the law. I'm like Bush used the DOJ and turned it into a corrupt institution to follow it's whims and wants which was illegal in action and against the law. Obama's DOJ is following the law although the words in the brief are inexcusable.

Statutes are not "policy choices", they are statutes.

The DoJ is not supposed to be political, hence Title 1; Department of Justice Organization and Functions, Section 32. It was the Bush administration that politicized the DoJ, under the guidance of KKK Rove and Dead-eye Dick Cheney. It's probably going to take us some time to actually having an ethical DoJ after 8 years of Bush's Kangaroo DoJ.

with folks. We voted Obama in office so we could assure an INDEPENDENT judiciary that follows the LAW.
People need to take a deep breath and stop listening/reading only the headlines. They need to dig into the truth of the matter.

Thanks for posting this. Maybe some folks will now breath a bit.

something many DUers, in the zeal to bash President Obama, seemed to have completely discarded

and demand that they file, not for the statutes in force today, but Your Statutes which will be in force later on. There's a label or two for a one man or woman congress.

A lot of the asses who put DADT and DOMA in action are still there and they all need to pay for those two major fuck ups. The DOJ is little to nothing in my immediate attack list. Congress on the other hand, in particular the dirty dealers in the Senate are another story.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

do you read your own posts?
did the bush administration vigorously enforce all the laws?

as passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

back when it was signed by Clinton, and supported by Hillary, it was teh awesome. But when the black president doesn't get rid of it fast enough, he is a bigot, because blacks should know better.... Have I got it right?

We don't want a professional DOJ?

It seems that when it suits the interests of progressives, they want Obama to do what Bush did (which we disliked him for).

I'm glad to see it is finally exercising some restraint.

One thing that both Obama and Biden were clear about was restoring the rule of law and the proper role of the executive in how our system operates.

This, of course, results in a voluntarily diminishment of the way that executive power has been wielded within the living memory of a lot of people.

it's not as if the doj could be replaced with a computer program that files briefs and motions.

Something you may not care about, but some of us do.

but if you want to play that game, i didn't list any options, so do you mean that ALL other choices are unconstitutional?

they had to take the EXACT action they did, or else be unconstitutional?
if it's that simple, and that cut-and-dried, then why do the courts need to read it at all?
apparently the constitution spells out the exact government position on every case, so the judge already knows it and the actual doj filings add nothing to the case, right?

oh, and here's a puzzler for ya: what if the doj is in a position of defending a law it believes to be unconstitutional?
is it required by the constitution to defend an unconstitutional law?

hmmmmm.

The courts have the power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to enforce the law - therefore, yes, it does have the obligation to defend an unconstitutional law.

It goes without saying that recent presidents have not lived up to this obligation.

yes, the executive branch has the *power* to enforce the law. marbury v. madison claimed a power for the court, it did not deny any power to the other branches. it did not claim that the other branches are not to pay heed to the constitution. the executive is not required to enforce or abide by an unconstitutional law until the courts makes its ruling. as an extreme example, had the previous congress & president passed slavery into law, would the obama administration really have to enforce it and defend it until the courts got around to striking it down? would they be required to ernestly present persuasive arguments supporting slavery?

the doj does not have the obligation to defend unconstitutional laws any more than it has an obligation to enforce ridiculous or odious or obsolete laws. is the state required to put people in jail for kissing more than 60 seconds if that law is on the books? is the doj required to defend laws some piece of jim crow legislation that never got removed?

if the federal government is challenged and required to appear in court, then the doj must make an appearance, yes. but nothing requires them to take a particular position about the laws involved, as long as they aren't biased in their application or defense of the law.

the woudl have to defend it. Of course, your example fails in that the executive would have veto power. Aside from that, they would be forced to enforce. The law would only come to review by the judiciary if an individual brought challenged some wrong against them. Essentially, someone could not just challenge a law, they would need to be involved in a criminal or civil case in which they can challenge the verdict to the supreme court level.

The DOJ is require to not only show up but to also defend the governments legislative position.

We want Obama to tell all Dems what to do.... as long as it's what they want to do... or should do.... or something like that.

Apparently, the Dems in Congress and elsewhere are to march in lock step.

I mean it worked so well for the Repugs!

This thread sucks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're not supposed to pick which laws to defend and which not to.

No, he didn't. Did this board resound with calls for impeachement every time he didn't? Absolutely, and rightfully so.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html

"Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:

'As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.'

Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

Unfortunately that seems to be the pov of a lot of folks on the left. The government SUCKED when the righties ruled the roost so its fine if it sucks the other way now that they are ousted (I'm NOT saying the government has gone leftie. Obviously there are miles to go before we could even suggest that). So, if the rightie DOJ can do whatever its masters want, OUR DOJ should be able to do the same thing on our side.

Well, no. In this case the "fair play" should be a return of the DOJ to its legal function. That is not to be the President's legal firm--that's what the office of legal counsel or whatever its called--is supposed to be. The DOJ is supposed to enforce the law as written IF that law is not clearly illegal itself. DOMA, unfortunately, is not illegal until/unless Congress grows the spine and guts to repeal it. Until that happens--around the 12th of Never IMHO--the law is the law, and the DOJ is not allowed to decide that issue.

We are supposed to have a government of laws. All O seems to want to do is to act accordingly.

Oh yeah like McCain would be better ;^) :sarcasm:

However, note many of the Presidents used in your politico quote (politico--the RW blog-world). Bush? Corrupt as all hell, but it's okay to use him.Greatness, when it suits us...it's all good. When we know for most if not all those Presidents listed, corruption of the DOJ was in full affect. Obama/Holder are currently cleaning out the DOJ. I can't believe we're using a defense of Bush's of all people.

n/t

Me, I'm just posting their words and enjoying watching people twist themselves in knots trying to explain away the shame. :)

In each of those instances, the statute interfered with a fundamental and established right in Supreme Court precedent - e.g. Miranda, free speech, etc.

To argue that the SG has discretion not to defend DOMA, then could you please identify the Supreme Court decision addressing the subject of gender-based marriage equality you would rely on to make that argument?

I won't hold my breath.

which established marriage as a fundamental right.

And men still can't get abortions.

The clarity of precedent in each of the cited examples is that they are on point. There have been conflicting lower court and state court decisions involving the application of Loving to gender based marriage equality. The situation here is not comparable to the other examples which are being used to call people "liars" with respect to the SG's extremely limited discretion in defending challenges to the law.

Take a look at this map of states which allow or do not allow marriage between first cousins:



Why are those differences allowed after Loving, in your view?

How can this be possible, if the proposition that any two people can get married is a nationally-established fundamental right?

(for example) for first cousins in certain states also automatically make them eligible for full FEDERAL protections and benefits?

If there is a legal marriage in Georgia, but nowhere else, does the heterosexual couple still receive recognition and federal benefits?

that was filed was disgusting, but to lay it at the feet of Obama is taking aim at the wrong person. Should Obama speak up now that it has been filed? Yes. But Obama didn't write it, he didn't file it, and I would guess didn't read it. There are hundreds, if not thousands of government briefs filed on a daily basis, and Obama can't be expected to read them all.

If Obama lets it just stand without commenting on it, then it's time to get angry. Really angry. But for now, I'm going to keep my powder dry, knowing how the federal courts function.

And while we all know that there are piles of government briefs filed, a wise politician would know that out of that haystack one could pull a needle of contention. So being unaware is politically stupid, when the case is so important, when your own standing with those who care about it is strained, and when you, the politician, have made many specific promises about this specific issue, promises not simply of results, but of leadership. How tone deaf is it to be in those shoes, and let that brief be written and released without review or comment? It is either one of the stupidest political moves I have ever seen, or an intentional telegraphing of a message. Due to the ongoing radio silence from the President, we are all free to make up our own minds about what he intends. That is again, his choice, his doing, he holds all the power.
And he has been silent. After all the high blown language. What you legal types call 'terms of art'. There are reasons that the legal profession is so beloved in America. The lies and the hair splitting are big parts of that. Legal folks live in a world that references only itself, speaks to itself and cares mostly about the procedural details of the profession. When you all come to others and find yourselves needing to explain why 'up' means 'down' in the law, you might be correct in your field, but politically the arguments you guys make are like lead balloons, and are too often based on this hubristic concept that others do not and can not understand. In politics, it does not matter if your opinion is cool in Law Land, the people smell bull and act accordingly. And this here is politics, not a courtroom.

and even since Election Day, other than a brief statement about being disappointed by Prop H8, has caused speculation to run rampant. Only he can tell us where he really stands, and show some leadership towards equality.

paralegal for a criminal defense attorney who practices in federal court. I wasn't offering a legal opinion...just reflecting on what I know procedurally. I work for the attorney who fights against the federal attorneys, for the rights of the people we represent. So find some other "you guys" to slam, instead of looking to paint with a broad brush.

the fact of the matter is that DOMA can be argued various ways and this president has already made clear his personal feelings on gay marriage.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...just...wow! Thanks for explaining this. I was silent, but I was taken aback by the language, and I was afraid that Obama's administration had actually approved of it.

Does my post title make any sense whatsoever?

So stop accusing them of killing all those people!

Ask any employee of any company or, indeed, any government.

If you want proof of this, you're an idiot.

The manual itself indicates the rules and regulations for the DOJ---which means...it's basically their laws written in a book. ie Catholics with Cathechism or better yet a Driving Manual for a driving test. You need to follow those in order to pass. In normal cases, as in day to day, the DOJ is an autonomous entity. It's the same way that the Supreme Court doesn't meet with the President for every case. Would you then blame the President for every case that the Supreme Court rules against?

Unless you can prove otherwise, it's clear that Pres. Obama was not involved in preparing the brief.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't remember you defending George W Bush when people blamed him when John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales did something bad.

Hypocrite.

And if you're just going to revise and delete every post that you write, I'm not bothering with you any longer. That's deceitful.

And if you're just going to revise and delete every post that you write, I'm not bothering with you any longer. That's deceitful.

You're making shit up. What's deceitful is continuing to attack Pres. Obama in the face of facts. Do I detect the smell of sour grapes?

That Bush DID interfere with DoJ functions in an improper manner.

You are also confusing actions of Gonzalez and Ashcroft within the realm of legitimate policy functions of the DoJ.

The Office of Solicitor General is not a policy function.

Determining whether to allocate prosecutorial and investigate resources of the criminal division to fighting either (a) terrorism or (b) pornography, is a policy function.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm glad you approve of this as well.

You're ignoring the rule of law and desperate to scapegoat and attack President Obama, aren't you? Read the OP again.

no one in hell is defending the language in the briefing. However it seems most people have an issue with the language and not the defense of the law. Well as it stands the language is abhorrent and I'm sure if and when Obama becomes aware of this he'll be appalled as well since it is contrary to his own beliefs which he has spoken public about.

That being said...don't lay blame the words of fools on Obama here. Especially when DOJ is, by and large, an autonomous department that has appointments. Similar to the Supreme Court. So if that's the case, my question to you is that every single decision the Supreme Court makes is in reflection of Obama as though Obama tried the case and made a ruling? Let's be serious then.

Say, using your argument, that Obama would be violating the law if he told Justice to not defend DOMA. (A lie, but just for the sake of argument.) Obama still has the option to ignore the nonexistent law. Bush had no problem telling Justice what to do, Clinton too, and neither of them are facing charges. So, yes, he's allowing this.l wouldn't defending civil rights be worth a simple violation of a law that, supposing it existed, he'd never be prosecuted for?

Let's put it another way. Would you be in favor of a president telling Justice not to defend the use of torture? the Alien and Seditipn Act? Slavery?

What would you think of a president who stood by and allowed Justice to defend the above?

The OP's sourced links make it clear that President Obama did not personally approve the DoJ brief. The DoJ was following the rule of law in upholding the law against a case filed against DOMA. Unless there is a new law approved by Congress, all challenges to DOMA will be defended by the DoJ. President Obama has NO say in DoJ affairs.

Let me be clear, because you choose not to be. I am defending the DOJ on following the actions of the law. I am not and HAVE NEVER defended the words used in the brief---by a pathetic and despicalbe lawyer. Which I have said was deplorable over and over and over and over again.

Hopefully Obama is and will continue to follow the law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Just following orders" has never been an acceptable defense. I read your post, and frankly, I am incensed that you spent so long giving the Obama admin a fig leaf to hide behind.

Thank you to all of the DUers who are standing with the GLBT against injustice and not trying to defend the indefensible. To everyone else, go kick some other dog while its down, ok? This shit hurts and I don't think many of you understand that.

But I know it makes so many of you feel justified in your dismissal of equal rights to think so.

they can not be tossed aside to further one's agenda

In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

There is plenty of precedent for the DOJ not to defend this.

All the OP is doing is presenting the legal facts which are sound. S/he is not defending the language of the briefings which is not sound and ultimately dispicable.

And lastly Obama has nothing to do with the language---you want him to have something to do with the language for whatever reason. However, what ever reason that may be, you'd be wrong if it this is Obama. You should really blame the fools who created DOMA and DADT---not to mention Congress for not making the immediate changes now that we have a President who wants those two things repealed.

I saw some posts really tearing into President Obama here last night, so I decided to do a little more in depth reading on this. I didn't have to go further than Daily Kos. I really wish people would stop, take a deep breath and do a little research before posting nasty shit about Obama. I think some of us developed that hair trigger during the Bush years, but back then, we were absolutely right in thinking the worst about everything his administration did. With President Obama's administration, there is almost always some larger picture that we aren't getting when these stories come out. We're just getting the most inflammatory part. It's just sad that people who tirelessly campaigned and voted for Obama are now failing to give him the benefit of the doubt on some of this stuff, and in some cases, almost all of it.

It is becoming more and more obvious that all 3 branches of government are allowing the gay and lesbian community to be used as the sacrificial lamb for the right-wing: The DOJ using discriminatory language, Congress not going after DADT, and Obama speaking before a right-wing church audience about the sacredness of heterosexual (only) marriages. The emotions on this are more than justified, and threads, such as this one which receive high ranking, only adds to the anger and bigotry being directed at gays and lesbians.

that DU'ers WANT Obama meddling in the judcial side of things?

Great post. Very clear, on point. Seems like it's hard not to get all excited flex those pack like voices now that they are allowed. It's cathartic to be outraged, but a correct focus seems to be missing. How is the pack like mentality (reacting with outrage on parsed information) any different that those going on at the Rapture Ready, or birthers web sites?

It's all over this board and apparent that a good number of DUers let their emotions of over the language of the briefings, which are appalling, to cloud their normal mental functions to the sound usage of the law. I've come to see that when it suits progressives, they want President Obama to own the government the same way Bush did. That means arm twist, manipulate, and lie through memos if need be to meet their agenda.

You'll also note that many arguments against the OPs post actually list George Bush and Regan and even Clinton cases when the DOJ was decidedly corrupt---and under Dubya extra corrupt.

Show your work. That is one hell of a thing to say about a Democratic President on a Democratic site, so back up your claim that the DOJ was decidedly corrupt during Clinton's administration. Then offer an example of an administration that you think was not corrupt, for all Presidents have chosen not to argue cases they do not wish to have argued. All of them.
When you decide to slander a Democratic Administration as decidedly corrupt in order to reject facts presented to you, I expect to see facts to back that accusation. Where are those facts? Decidedly corrupt you said. Prove it. Or at least share with us what leads you to that nasty statement.

...you may be shooting the messenger. I took the narrative to mean that the poster has seen such posts on DU, and not that they personally have endorsed or said such a thing. I think :)

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=447

And I made clear that we've been dealing with a rather corrupt DOJ for a while. I also should note and I admit that I could be wrong but wasn't a certain Clinton pardon held over Holder during his committee briefing?

Lastly, please calm your indignation. I don't stand here to put anyone on a pedestal or any democratic president. So I'm supposed to love everything FDR did when he was a racist?! Am I supposed to agree with everything Carter or Clinton or even Obama is supposed to do...no. And in the past no one can deny that there were shady dealings with a lot of the former Presidents.

from Othniel's diary at the Daily Kos:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed his answer to the Federal suit brought by Ted Olson and David Boies.

One reason I really do prefer litigating in Federal Court is the Rules of Civil Procedure are taken seriously and actually make sense. Unlike in Texas State Courts, where if I represent a defendant it is unethical for me not to lie in my opening pleading on his, her or its behalf, in Federal Court each substantive Allegation of the Complaint must be addressed in the Answer to the Complaint. (In Texas we dispense with such niceties by filing a simple one page document called a General Denial, which says everything is in issue, we deny all; oil your six shooters).

Let's examine what California's Attorney General admits to be true from the Complaint, under penalty of Rule 11 Sanctions.

Othniel is an attorney in Texas, and he is a gay man with a loving partner.

Holder should be ashamed for what he did yesterday, and he should sack the man who wrote that harmful brief.

Most and decidedly a good majority on this site blame Obama. However, I'd have to say this speaks directly to Holder and for allowing this lawyer to make such slanderous claims. Yet, for so many here----Obama is to blame.

Obama picked Holder. Holder was part of Clinton's DOJ, which you have declared to have been 'decidedly corrupt.' Yet picking from that pool was wise?
Your arguments are all over the place. If Clintons DOJ was 'decidedly corrupt' as you proclaim, then why did Obama pick his AG from a decidedly corrupt talent pool? What is the reasoning for that? Decidedly corrupt you say. Not moderately. Not possibly, but decidedly corrupt.

The brief was definitely horrendous and indefensible but the way people were going after Obama last night (and even CNN decided to join in the fun by having Campbell Brown discuss whether or not Obama is "selling out" the GLBT community) was pretty crazy- as though he authored the brief himself and/or was out stumping for the continuation of DOMA. I myself wanted to know exactly what the situation was and found out most of what you posted here myself- that POTUS is not SUPPOSED to be influencing the DOJ but, unfortunately, after eight years of Buscho, there are some real crackpots still infesting the DOJ. Hopefully, Holder can and will start "weeding" some of them out and getting some better legal minds into DOJ over the course of the next 4-8 years- or at least start paying a little more attention to the briefs being written on behalf of the DOJ- although I'm not sure what the review process is for briefs and how many briefs even Holder himself reviews. I would THINK that SOMEBODY is reviewing them but then again if the people reviewing them are crackpots too, well, then...............:shrug: After eight year of Buscho, the DOJ needs an "enema" that it may, sadly, not get if we can't legally get rid of the rotten apples left behind by Bushco (and we were warned what was going on too).

Mineta; Dickerson v. US; Metro Broadcasting v. FCC; INS v. Chadha

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-po...

"Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:

'As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.'

Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v. Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

He's a "fierce advocate" of the gays. Fierce, I say.

A poster on another thread went into a great deal of detail explaining how the government's egregious defense of DOMA might well be a way of having it struck down in court.

Legally, they can do nothing as a branch, to change it themselves but they don't like it either. So when a case comes up, they find the most awful defense possible, that a even a conservative judge must repudiate.

If they went about it 'sanely' with reasonable arguements, the bloody DOMA crap would likely stand.

By highlighting 'teh stupid', they not only gracefully lose, but they also bring attention to the invalidity of the opoosition's arguements, most of which are as crass and anti-humanistic as the 'brief'.

If it's not that way, and Obama's got it in for gays, I'll apologize many times over. I want my friends to be able to marry too. But for now, after weighing some evidence, I will assume it's a feint, and a good one too. If it succeeds, the language thus defeated will be taken out of the mouths of the conservatives, who frankly originated it.

He lets the government that he is the head of villify gay people.

Not a peep out of him.

Why is that?

Don't feed me some "our government at work" bullshit. There was a PERSONAL anti-gay hateful - and purely gratuitous - framing of the DOMA defense.

And Obama let it happen!

There is NO excuse. NONE. And I honestly can't believe even the most diehard Obama groupies are defending him. What did you vote for him then, if you don't care that he's defending a pro-discrimination law?

portraying it.

OH WAIT, but he was still held accountable for what his underlings were doing was he not?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This just happened, what? Yesterday? We're way too used to wanting and getting knee-jerk reactions to everything and anything from our leaders. "This was said a minute ago, what do you say?" And then, "He said this thirty-seconds ago in response to what you said, what you do you say now?"

I seem to remember Obama making a very strong and clear statement to one reporter who was demanding just such a knee-jerk reaction from him that he didn't respond to anything until he had all the facts, and had them straight.

So, yes, I know you want him to respond to this right now or you will hate him forever, but I, personally, would rather not have another president bullied, bulldozed, and blindsided into making statements on anything too soon or too fast or immediately. Those are the statements that can come back and bite people in the ass.

If he makes no statement on it, then game on. But just because he hasn't presented, in public, the same instant, knee-jerk reaction as you on this brief, doesn't condemn him in my book. I want a president who actually takes time to read over what was said, find out out wrote it, why, who was in charge, how it happened, why it happened, etc., before they issue an informed statement on the topic. Who knows, maybe at this very moment he's looking into how to fire the people responsible, and THAT is why you haven't heard anything. That, to me, is a president who thinks and is working to do something, not a knee-jerk reactionary that's going to get us into stupid messes. Messes he could have seen coming if he had taken the time to read, think and be informed rather than rely on knee-jerks.

You can afford a knee-jerk reaction here on the internet. It costs you nothing to spill out your vitriol and emotions, under a pseudonym, in a post that will be pretty much gone in 48 hours. But what Obama says, on the news, going out around the world, can affect lives, laws, the future of our country...I'd rather HIS responses not be knee-jerk.

The reaction that you are seeing has a lot to do with Obama's history with the gay community, which goes back a bit before yesterday and contains enough to give pause to anyone who is not a hopelessly giddy fan.

...since the election. I'm only talking, however, about his silence on this brief, which is what this thread is about. If you start a thread on Obama's communication or lack-thereof with gays from election day on, then that's something else entirely and I'll happy side with you on the fact that he hasn't really had any such dialogue and should.

But I'm not going to lump the fact that we've haven't seen a knee-jerk reaction to this with Obama not saying enough or anything on gay rights. Like I said, I don't want to see a knee-jerk reaction from him to anything short of a shooting or 911 attack. A legal brief, however offensive or stupid, representing the stance of the U.S. government on anything needs a strong response, and I'd rather the President work out a good one, then a quick one which YOU and others can then tear apart for being not good enough.

You know, how he still believes in civil unions for teh gays, not marriage. His silence in the wake of this filth is deafening. Comparing gay couples who love one another to incestuous coupes and pedophilia is breath talking in its audacity of hate.

Thank you very much.

didn't think it was important to provide its readers with the actual facts from a legal standpoint. They claim to know whereof they speak because both John and Joe are lawyers but, clearly, their personal agenda is more important than providing their readers with actual facts. That's why I deleted their blog from my favorites list. It's not helpful for me to read blogs written by people that don't give me all the facts.

After DOMA has gone through the courts, Obama is going to ask Congress to repeal it. And I believe they will. But don't take my word for it, just wait and see what happens.

As is obvious, some people on this board are sitting in a corner waiting to jump on Obama (even as a person) for anything. This episode fits their pre-existing narrative, so it plays out the way it will play out. If only these people had given Clinton half as much hell for signing the awful, craven, and unconstitutional DOMA in the first place. Hmmm, why would Bill Clinton want to sign that outrageous pseudo-law in September of 1996. I wonder.

Of course the Justice Department can't clear briefs within the President in ongoing litigation. I think Bush actually convinced a lot of progressives that the President IS and SHOULD BE a dictator.

When is he going to begin the push for gay rights in this country? The start of the effort to Repeal of DADT and DOMA should happen soon so the DOJ doesnt in their minds have to defend a policy Obama considers abhorrent.

I'm not quite sure what Obama and Congress is waiting for...

Obama has already stated he wants Congress to make a move on this. I'm sure you're aware that Obama and Pentagon clarified that Obama is working towards repealing these two laws...correct? So why would you say Obama is waiting...?

Not to mention...have you seen the politics on Health? Does it look like to you, that we'll get a health care bill passed by this summer or even this year? Actually does it even look to you as though anyone other than Obama/Dean and a few rare others are interested in health care reform for the American people? And be honest. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has promises he wants to fulfill and without doing so he'd lose the faith of the people as seems to be the case with you and so many of the people on this board. While on the other hand...most people ignore and forget that there is a division of power in US government. Where Obama has lost to the Senate in the past. There are people intentionally set on destroying him in Congress---in particular the Senate. If you pay attention to an inkling of the news you should be fully aware of that.

He's multi-tasking, but Congress runs on half a brain. So he's not about to push too many legislative bills on those idiots. To me that is functional especially if you want success. So far the first thing he hit was the economy while he worked on things like Gitmo, Gay rights, Womens rights and so on and so forth on the side lines. Now he's pushing the health care reform act and he's meeting even more resistance. You are aware that several Democrats have publicly announced that they would not vote for health care reform if there is a public option, correct?

Take that into consideration and then moving on several other important bills we won't get shit done. Also, I'm sure you're aware of the fools like Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman who stated that they would hold up every single bill that goes through by filibustering it until their bill is passed right?!

You should be aware of these things. He has fools holding the Senate for hostage, while on the other hand he has Dems who are intentionally fucking up Obama's good intentions and the lives of the American people. So do you think it's a good move to not only have the Health care bill out there but also LGBT bill at the same time when these people can't even agree on anything.

He wants to build as much of a following as he can for each important bill and so far for Obama he felt that the first priority for the massive work each entail (as in making townhall meetings and flying across the nation to get things done) he felt the economy and health care are first. However, I am very hopeful and do believe he will target LGBT rights next or at least 4th on the list.

Remember we hired him for 4 years. We should give him that time.

You sound like a ridiculous fanboy with these justifications.

First, Obama told us - and we expected - that he would LEAD on these issues. HE told us he'd be a 'fierce advocate'...not sit on his ass and blame Congress for doing nothing when he asks for nothing. I repeat - he's asked neither Congress nor the Joint Chiefs to begin work on repealing DADT. He's been SILENT. He's done zilch...zero...nada...nothing.

We have a Democratic Congress and you think a Democratic president couldn't get such a straightfoward bill through, especially one that has overwhelming public support? What planet do you live on?

.....thanks very much. Hopefully people around here will read it, not just for the specifics with regard to DOMA but with their attitude toward the Obama administration in general.

Sadly, very sadly, people feel the need to criticize and complain. I suspect this is a hangover from the eight years of the bush regime, but that's over - let's start looking at things positively! Unfortunately people are looking for things to change 100% in a few short months. There are lots of important things to accomplish, and the Obama administration has been attacking them at a faster pace than I think many thought possible. If things aren't dramatically different by the middle of next year (although they already are, though not completely) THEN people have a right to bitch. Until then, I hope they have a little patience!

and not a partisan one.


This was one of the main campaign points we used against Bush.


We did not vote to replace our partisanship with theirs when it comes to the department of Justice.


Excellent post.

What has he said in support of gays in light of HIS DOJ defending these laws in court?

NOT ONE FUCKING THING.

Not one fucking thing.

Yes, I'm outraged. I'm fucking outraged. Maybe you're not. Maybe it's perfectly OK with you that Obama is all talk and no action when it comes to gays, that he says absolutely nothing when his DOJ issues a brief like this. But is it NOT all right with me. And I will speak out about it. Just like I would if it were Bush's DOJ. Because as far as I'm concerned, it still is.